Relationship between Thinking Styles and Organizational Commitment

(1)

Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences

www.textroad.com

* Corresponding Author: Badri Shahtalebi, Department of Educational sciences, Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch, Islamic Azad University,

Relationship between Thinking Styles and Organizational Commitment

Ali Toghyani, Badri Shahtalebi

Department of Educational sciences, Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

Received: December 13 2013 Accepted: January 27 2014

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between thinking styles and organizational commitment of high school teachers. It was carried out by descriptive correlation method. The participants of this study were 4090 teachers that were all high school teachers of Isfahan. 351 teachers were selected to participate in the study by using sample size formula and stratified random sampling. Data collection tools were a standard questionnaire of Sternberg's thinking styles (1962) consisting of 65 items and Allen and Meyer's organizational commitment questionnaire (1985) consisting of 24 items in a 5- point likert scale format. The face validity of them was verified by experts. Reliability of both questionnaires was also calculated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient which was 0.85 for thinking styles questionnaire and 0.80 for organizational commitment questionnaire. In order to analyze data, descriptive statistics including frequency, percentage and mean, and inferential statistics including Pearson correlation coefficient, multiple regression and multi-way ANOVA were used. Data analysis showed that there was a significant relationship between exclusive thinking style and organizational commitment (r=0.40, p<0.01), legislative style and organizational commitment (r=0.27, p<0.01), judicial style and organizational commitment (r=0.33, p<0.01), monarchical style and organizational commitment (r=0.33, p< 0 .01), hierarchical style and organizational commitment (r=0.40, p< 0.01), oligarchic style and organizational commitment (r=0.39, p<0.01), anarchic style and organizational commitment (r=0.26, p<0.01), global style and organizational commitment (r=0.23, p< 0.01), external style and organizational commitment (r=0.36, p<0.01), liberal style and organizational commitment (r=0.21, p<0.01) and conservative style and organizational commitment (r=0.39, p<0.01).

However, there wasn't a significant relationship between internal style and organizational commitment (r=0.08, p<0.01). Among variables in regression, the best predictor of organizational commitment of teachers in the first step was hierarchical style and in the second step was conservative style.

KEY WORDS: commitment, organizational commitment, style, thinking styles, education, teachers.

INTRODUCTION

The fundamental characteristic of human being is having ability to think. Using their own thought, human beings have been able to overcome the complicated and changeable environment and continue to live. People think how to do things in their own particular way.

Thinking is a process during which a person suitably puts his knowledge together to be able to reach new conclusion. In fact, thinking style is a method that a person uses to incorporate his own knowledge. Thinking is rearrangement with cognitive changes of acquired information from environment and stored symbols in long-term memory (Seif, 2001).

Thinking styles are strong tools for people to understand themselves and others and improve their own social skills by using them (Sternberg 1998). The term of style isn't synonymous with ability, but it's a method for using a person's ability. Therefore, people can be similar in their abilities, but different in thinking styles (Sternberg, 1998).

A theorist by the name of Sternberg suggested the theory of mental self-government and proposed 13 styles for thinking styles: legislative, executive, judicial, monarchic, hierarchic, oligarchic, anarchic, global, local, external, internal, liberal, and conservative style (Sternberg, 1998).

Different studies have shown that individuals’ thinking styles can be affected by factors such as culture, age, major, experience, or parents' styles (Emami Poor, 2003). So far predominant evaluation has been that thinking styles are in the field of psychological science, but the fact is that it's a common subject between psychological science and sociology (Triss, 2001).

Also, thinking is attributed to personality trait of people. Moreover, while many people use one thinking style in a situation, many others use compound styles and other policies simultaneously (Harison & Bramson, 1983).

Since, according to conducted researches, employees' behavior in an organization can be affected by their attitudes, it seems necessary for managers of the organization to be aware of them. Although it should be stated that being aware of all staff's attitudes is not very important for managers of organizations and they are not interested in knowing all these attitudes. In fact, managers are interested in knowing those attitudes related to work and organization. Organizational commitment is one of the attitudes which have attracted the most attention of researchers to it.

Organizational commitment is an important job and organizational attitude which has interested many researchers of organizational behavior and psychology and specially social psychology during last years. This attitude has been changed during three decades. Maybe the main change in this field has been multi-dimensional attitude to this concept and single- dimensional attitude. Also recent changes in the scope of business including downsizing, merging companies with each other, have made some experts state that effect of organizational commitment on other important variables in managerial areas including leaving job, absence and performance has decreased. So investigating this issue is inappropriate. But some other researchers have not

(2)

accepted this view and they believe that organizational commitment has not lost its importance yet and it can be constantly researched (Farhangi & Hossein Chari, 2005).

Organizational commitment has been defined differently, but the most common one is that it is a kind of emotional dependency to organization or a sense of loyalty to the organization (Herskovich, 2002, p.87)

Many studies have confirmed the positive effect of organizational commitment on the performance of organizations. People who have less commitment have more job leave and absence. On the one hand, according to the numerous studies, affective organizational commitment affects workforce's job satisfaction, and on the other hand organizational output increases as commitment among workforce increases (Allen & Mayer, 1996, p.49). High commitment can be an index to specify the effectiveness of staff in an organization (Coleman, 2002). In this study, Allen and Mayer's three-dimensional model was used to investigate organizational commitment. They defined organizational commitment in three dimensions, namely (a) Affective commitment; this dimension represents the employee's emotional attachment to identification with, and involvement in organization with having positive feeling. Employees who are strongly committed to an organization on an affective basis continue working for the organization because they want to stay in the organization. (b) Continuance commitment; it's based on giving value to the organization. In this dimension of commitment, employees stay in an organization because they need to stay and they have high loyalty to the organization. (c) Normative commitment; it is defined as individuals' feelings based on necessity of staying in the organization. Employees with strong normative commitment stay in the organization because they feel they should do it (Allan & Mayer, 1991).

Some studies have been conducted on thinking styles and organizational commitment. For example, Nazem and Rahmati (2009) investigated the relationship between thinking styles and output. Tabakh (2006) examined the relationship between thinking styles and decision-making styles. Shandong (2008) investigated the relationship between thinking styles and organizational commitment. Kevin and Charles (2009) studied the relationship between thinking styles, emotional intelligence and organizational commitment. And Aihong (2012) examined the relationship between thinking styles and organizational commitment. According to what mentioned above, the theoretical model of this study is described by the figure below.

Criterion variable predictor variable

Objectives of the study

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between thinking styles and organizational commitment. This study was intended to examine the relationship between different kinds of thinking styles (executive, legislative, judicial, monarchic, hierarchic, oligarchic, anarchic, global, local, internal, external, liberal and conservative) and organizational commitment. This study also aimed at investigating predicting ability of organizational commitment through thinking styles.

Method, participants and instrument

The method of this study was descriptive correlation. The participants of this study were all high school teachers of Isfahan (4093 teachers). 351 teachers were then selected by stratified random sampling. In order to collect data, two questionnaires were employed in this study. One was Sternberg's questionnaire of thinking styles consisting of 65 questions and Allen and Mayer's questionnaire of organizational commitment consisting of 24 questions. The reliability of two questionnaires was calculated by using Cronbach's alpha. The reliability of the questionnaire of thinking styles and organizational commitment was 0.85 and 0.80 respectively.

Findings

Main question: Is there a relationship between thinking styles and organizational commitment?

Dimensions Thinking Styles

Executive

Teachers' thinking styles Legislative

Judicial Monarchic Hierarchic Oligarchic Anarchic Global Local External Internal Liberal Conservative Dimensions Organizational

commitment Affective

commitment

Dimensions of

organizational commitment

Continuance commitment

Normative commitment

(3)

Table 1: Correlation coefficient between thinking styles and organizational commitment

Variable: Organizational commitment

Predictor variable Correlation coefficient Square of correlation coefficient Sig.

Thinking style 0.431 0.186 0.001

P<0.01

According to table 1, correlation coefficient is significant between thinking styles and organizational commitment. According to coefficient of determination (r²), 18.6% of the variance of thinking styles and organizational commitment is common.

Question 1: Is there a relationship between executive thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 2: Correlation coefficient between executive thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

Organizational commitment Index

Executive thinking styles 0.405 0.164 0.001

P<0.01

According to table 2, correlation coefficient is significant between executive thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 16.4% of the variance of executive thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Question 2: Is there a relationship between legislative thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 3: Correlation coefficient between legislative thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

Legislative thinking style 0.273 0.074 0.001

P<0.01

According to table 3, correlation coefficient is significant between legislative thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 7.4% of the variance of legislative thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Question 3: Is there a relationship between judicial thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 4: Correlation coefficient between judicial thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

Judicial thinking style 0.335 0.112 0.001

P<0.01

According to table 4, correlation coefficient is significant between judicial thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 11.2% of the variance of judicial thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Question 4: Is there a relationship between monarchic thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 5: Correlation coefficient between monarchic thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

Monarchic thinking style 0.336 0.113 0.001

P<0.01

According to table 5, correlation coefficient is significant between monarchic thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 11.3% of variance of monarchic thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Question 5: Is there a relationship between hierarchic thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 6: Correlation coefficient between hierarchic thinking style and organizational style

Variable

Hierarchic thinking style 0.404 0.163 0.001

P<0.01

(4)

According to table 6, correlation coefficient is significant between hierarchic thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 16.3% of variance of hierarchic thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Question 6: Is there a relationship between oligarchic thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 7: Correlation between oligarchic thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

Predictor variable Correlation coefficient Square of correlation coefficient Sig.

Oligarchic thinking style 0.392 0.154 0.001

P<0.01

According to table 7, correlation coefficient is significant between oligarchic thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 15.4% of variance of oligarchic thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Question 7: Is there a relationship between anarchic thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 8: Correlation coefficient between anarchic thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

Anarchic thinking style 0.262 0.069 0.001

P<0.01

According to table 8, correlation coefficient is significant between anarchic thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 6.9% of variance of anarchic thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Table 9: Correlation between global thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

Global thinking style 0.222 0.049 0.001

P<0.01

According to table 9, correlation coefficient is significant between global thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 4.9% of variance of global thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Question 9: Is there a relationship between local thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 10: Correlation coefficient between local thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

Local thinking style 0.230 0.053 0.001

P<0.01

According to table 10, correlation coefficient is significant between local thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 5.3% of variance of local thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Question 10: Is there a relationship between external thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 11: Correlation coefficient between external thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

External thinking style 0.361 0.130 0.001

P<0.01

According to table 11, correlation coefficient is significant between external thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 13% of variance of external thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Question 11: Is there a relationship between internal thinking style and organizational commitment?

(5)

Table 12: Correlation coefficient between internal thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

Internal thinking style 0.088 0.008 0.156

P<0.01

As table 12 shows, correlation coefficient is not significant between internal thinking style and organizational commitment. It means that there is not a significant relationship between internal thinking style and organizational commitment of teachers of Isfahan.

Question 12: Is there a relationship between liberal thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 13: Correlation coefficient between liberal thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

Liberal thinking style 0.217 0.047 0.001

P<0.01

As table 13 shows, correlation coefficient is significant between liberal thinking style and organizational commitment. According to coefficient of determination (r²), 4.7% of variance of liberal thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Question 13: Is there a relationship between conservative thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 14: Correlation coefficient between conservative thinking style and organizational commitment

Variable

Conservative thinking style 0.394 0.155 0.001

P<0.01

As table 14 shows, correlation coefficient is significant between conservative thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 15.5% of variance of conservative thinking style and organizational commitment is common.

Question 14: Which thinking styles can predict teachers' organizational commitment?

Table 15: Multiple correlation coefficient of dimensions of thinking styles and organizational commitment

Statistical index Criterion variable

Predictor variable

Multiple- correlation coefficient

Square of multiple correlation coefficient

Square of adjusted multiple-

correlation coefficient

Coefficient of F Sig.

First step Hierarchic thinking style 0.407 0.166 0.162 0.48540 0.001

Second step Hierarchic and conservative thinking style

0.507 0.257 0.249 0.03535 0.001

P<0.01

As table 15 shows, among variables studied, in first step the best predictor of teachers' organizational commitment in regression was hierarchic thinking style and in the second step it was hierarchic thinking style as well as conservative thinking style.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Is there a relationship between thinking style and organizational commitment?

Results of table 1 show that correlation coefficient is significant between thinking style and organizational commitment.

According to coefficient of determination (r²), 18.6% of the variance of thinking style and organization commitment is common.

The fundamental characteristic of human being is having ability to think. Using their own thought, human beings have been able to overcome the complex and changeable environment and continue to live. People think how to do things in their own particular way. Therefore, thinking style is a method for using a person's ability. One of the dependent areas to thinking style is a person's sense of belonging and commitment to an organization. A person's tendency to stay in an organization, working effectively, helping the effectiveness and promotion of the organization or on the contrary, tendency to leave the organization, egotism, unwillingness to work in a team and participate in doing organizational tasks depend on people’s thinking style.

Both approaches of tendency to stay or leave an organization depend on employees' thinking basis. Therefore, recognizing people's thinking styles and trying to change them in an area that encounters disorder can help organizational and personal changes. In organizations, managers usually confront this challenge that why some employees are satisfied with working environment, staff and colleagues and have emotional attachment, but some others show uncommitted behavior. Obviously

(6)

employees' use of instrumental values is not a definitive solution of organizational problems, but challenges and other variables like examining a person's thinking basis are more important. Thus, recognizing individuals' thinking styles can help us to recognize and change dependent variables. Therefore, the relationship between two variables can be explained.

The findings of this study (main question) are in line with the results of studies conducted by Golyan (1992), Shandong (2008), Aihong (2012) and Nazem and Rahmati (1387). Results of Golyan's study indicated that there was a relationship between thinking style and person's ability with flexibility and working relations. Aihong also found a positive relationship between thinking styles and three dimensions of organizational commitment. In a study, Shandong found a significant relationship between thinking styles and affective commitment and thinking styles and organizing emotions. Moreover, in Nazem and Rahmati's study, the relationship between thinking styles and efficiency was investigated and proved.

Question 1: Is there a relationship between executive thinking style and organizational commitment?

The findings of table 2 show that correlation coefficient is significant between executive thinking style and organizational commitment.

Individuals with this thinking style prefer to follow rules and work on pre-organized and pre-arranged tasks, work within frameworks of the existing structures, fulfill the organizational criteria, follow superior's orders, work cheerfully, and work according to organizational methods of evaluation and respect to group norms. On the other hand, organizational commitment is defined as complete faith and accepting values and goals of organization, and becoming involved in the organization. Therefore, committed individuals are those who show commitment to organizational tasks. Although moving beyond organizational structures is one of strategies to change the organization, being faithful to existing structures and written and codified rules that the organization is based on is one of the effective factors in effectiveness and efficiency of organization. Executive individuals are committed to follow procedures of the organization and pave the way for providing the basis to promote the organization.

According to what mentioned, the relationship between thinking style and organizational commitment can be explained.

Question 2: Is there a relationship between legislative thinking style and organizational commitment?

Table 3 shows that the correlation coefficient between legislative thinking style and organizational commitment is significant. Legislative individuals prefer to legislate themselves and deal with things that are not pre-planned and pre-organized.

They are characterized by designing new organizational projects, creating values, entrepreneurship, creating new ideas, risk- taking, lack of compliance with existing rules and regulations, lack of compliance with pre-specified charts and structures, do tasks through unusual procedures. On the other hand, organizational commitment is defined as individuals' tendency to devote their energy to the organization, sense of responsibility, being involved in work, doing activities to make organization gain benefits, and commitment to their own job. Therefore, it seems that legislative individuals due to their own characteristics such as creating new ideas, creating values and lack of compliance with charts, feel more responsible and as a result they show more commitment. Therefore, the relationship between legislative thinking style and organizational commitment can be explained.

Question 3: Is there a relationship between judicial thinking style and organizational commitment?

The findings of table 4 show that correlation coefficient between judicial thinking style and organizational commitment is significant. Judicial individuals are analytic and challenge existing structures and evaluate them. These individuals play the role of a critic and they have critical thought. Their critical ability is not repressive but they are goal-oriented so they prioritize their goals and present the best ones. Being goal-orientation and paying attention to goals according to prioritization cause a person to show more commitment to the organization. Judicial individuals are characterized by examining activities which have been done, analyzing existing procedures, identifying strengths and weaknesses and future opportunities and risks. Regarding characteristics of organizational commitment such as being involved in work, the amount of a person's challenge and effort in an organization, the amount of the person's participation in the organization, having orientation to the organization and identification of a person's understanding of expenses related to leaving the organization, the relationship between judicial thinking style and organizational commitment is clarified. Individuals who have judicial thinking style evaluate and examine their own job duties as a critic and inspector. As a result of inspecting their own activities they can find the strengths and weaknesses of working procedures and change and improve it. Therefore, the commitment to the assigned tasks increases.

Question 4: Question 4: Is there a relationship between monarchic thinking style and organizational commitment?

The results of table 5 indicate that correlation coefficient between teachers' monarchic thinking style and organizational commitment is significant. Most monarchic individuals are single-minded and don't let anybody interfere in solving their problems. They prefer to sort out the problems themselves, they trust their own abilities. Also monarchic individuals are characterized by their will and determination. They look for something that has been remained in their minds. These individuals consider only one factor in their decision-making. They have strong will in important works and they are able to concentrate on one task. Organizational duties have particular characteristics in organizational structure. Some organizational tasks are more important and need concentration and particular investigation. This group of organizational tasks is usually dealt with without the effect of the other organizational variables and external environment. There are also duties that constantly cause challenges during different organizational periods. It needs concentration and decision to remove them. Monarchic individuals can control these tasks, concentrate on and solve them with their will and high self-confidence. Thus, these individuals are committed to their duty and show dependency to their roles in the organization. Therefore, the relationship between monarchic thinking style and organizational commitment can be explained.

Question 5: Is there a relationship between hierarchic thinking style and organizational commitment?

According to table 6, results show that correlation coefficient between hierarchic thinking style and organizational commitment is significant. Hierarchic people set the goals hierarchically and recognize the need for priorities. They prefer to concentrate on prioritized tasks. They are often persuaded by hierarchies of goals and are aware that they are not equally

(7)

achievable and some are more important. Therefore, they set priorities and accordingly distribute their own resources and facilities carefully. They tend to be systematic and organized in their solutions to problems and in their decision making.

On the other hand, one of the dimensions of organizational commitment is commitment to duty. In commitment to duty, people prioritize and pay attention to what the most important is and they constantly link personal and organizational goals.

Consequently, this commitment attracts people's attention to the tasks and goals and leads to reasonable and logical work and as a result success of organization can be achieved. Regarding what mentioned, it can be concluded that people who have hierarchic thinking style can get acceptable grade in this dimension of commitment. Thus, the relationship between them can be explained.

Question 6: Is there a relationship between oligarchic thinking style and organizational commitment?

The results of table 7 indicate that the correlation coefficient between oligarchic thinking style and organizational commitment is significant. Oligarchic people are more affected by goals of equal perceived importance. They have problems in deciding which goals are more important. As a result of this, they have problems in allocating resources. It means they are not sure what to do first. So they don't have pre-planned schedule for their work (they don't arrange things in advance). They prefer to work on several tasks in a limited period of time without considering any priorities in doing them. They tend to do things during specified period of time. They feel they are under pressure with time limit and other recourses for those goals that have equal importance. According to the definitions of organizational commitment, for example in organizational commitment, it's agreeable to have kind of orientation towards organization and also organizational tendency is tending to devote energy to organization, it can be concluded that oligarchic people also have acceptable commitment. For concentrating on goals in order to recognize more important goals, working on and doing several tasks in a specified time limit indicate people's commitment. Although in this thinking style a person is unable to prioritize things, doing tasks in its specified time and concentrating on several activities to achieve organizational goals indicate their organizational commitment.

Question 7: Is there a relationship between anarchic thinking style and organizational commitment?

The findings of table 8 show that correlation coefficient between anarchic thinking style and organizational commitment is significant. In other words, there is a significant relationship between anarchic thinking style and organizational commitment.

Anarchic people are motivated by a variety of needs and goals that can be difficult for them to prioritize. They treat things as accidental, they don't like to be organized and they disagree with everyone who wants to control and organize them into groups.

They are disorganized. They are not bound to particular boundaries and they like to do things in a way that it's impossible for most people to even imagine that. They enjoy doing tasks that they have necessary flexibility about what, where, when and how to do them. Anarchic people like to choose the goals freely and achieve them in whatever way they like. They are not bound to any rules and accomplish things abnormally. Anarchic people are committed to their work when tasks are flexible and as they would like. It shows the explanation of the relationship between anarchic thinking style and organizational commitment. When anarchic people encounter limitation and when their behavior is strictly controlled, they develop criticism-taking commitment. It’s a kind of commitment with negative orientation that is appeared a lot in limited conditions.

Question 8: Is there a relationship between global thinking style and organizational commitment?

The results of table 9 show that correlation coefficient is significant between global thinking style and organizational commitment.

Global people prefer to deal with large and abstract issues. They don't pay attention to details. They attend to comprehensiveness of issues and concentrate on general image. They give more importance to the general effect of tasks that they have to do and they deal with plans that refer to general issues. They present general image of ideas when they speak or write about issues. One of their policies is concentration on general thing. It seems that global people pay attention to organizational records more than details. Also in theoretical basics of commitment, one of the definitions of commitment is positive attitude of people to the whole organization not specific job. Therefore, it seems that the global view of these people paves the way to be committed to the whole organization and indicates kind of interest in organization.

Question 9: Is there a relationship between local thinking style and organizational commitment?

As table 12 shows correlation coefficient is significant between local thinking style and organizational commitment?

Local people focus on details. They are practical and tend to be guided to practical directions of a situation. There's a risk for them that attending to details stop them from seeing the whole. Organizations need people who are both global and local. They enjoy doing tasks that provide the possibility for them to work on main and special dimensions of an issue and its concrete details.

These people are aware of their own duties; as a result they attempt to perform their tasks carefully. Therefore, it seems that this thinking style correlates strongly with the dimension of commitment to work and duty. Individuals who are duty-bound are practical and pay attention to organizational tasks and duties. They commit themselves to do tasks carefully. Thus, it can be concluded that local people also get acceptable grade in organizational commitment. The relationship between local thinking style and organizational commitment can be explained.

Question 10: Is there a relationship between external thinking style and organizational commitment?

The findings of table 11 indicate that correlation coefficient is significant between external thinking style and organizational commitment. External people tend to external environment and they are people-oriented. They often have social sensitivity and they are aware of what happens to others. They prefer to work with others as much as possible. They like to perform tasks that give them opportunities to interact with other people. They receive others gladly. They give importance to communication and try to trust others in communication. They are sensitive to social issues. They make friendly conditions in the organization. They have the ability to influence on other people and encourage them to do their work better. They trust the individuals and show them that they are assured of their abilities. They receive changes and put the organization in a dynamic state. They are interested in group

(8)

work. They pay attention to what happens around them and compare their beliefs with others'. They take the lead in doing things.

Interacting with other people energizes them. They take the risk of doing things. They decide quickly. They are social and interested in group work. They like to have relationship with others when they work and it's a kind of need for them to have social relationship. The characteristics of these people are compatible with the commitment to customers and affective commitment.

Therefore, the relationship between them can be explained.

Question 11: Is there a relationship between internal thinking style and organizational commitment?

The results of table 12 show that the correlation between internal thinking style and organizational commitment is not significant. It means that there is no significant relationship between internal thinking style and organizational commitment.

They tend to be introverted, task-oriented, aloof and sometimes socially less aware. They prefer to work alone. According to the theory of equality, it can be said that if bonus and punishment in workplace is based on fair and competence, the employees will be satisfied. As they are more satisfied, they tend to stay in the organization more and gradually become emotionally dependent on the organization and commit themselves to continue their work. Internal people are interested in being independent and alone. They are capable of deep emotions, but they avoid showing them; therefore, they don't tend to ask others for social support. They are interested in doing those tasks that they can do by themselves. They are energized by individual activities. They want freedom and they are hesitant and passive against external world. Being introverted and task-oriented make them committed to the work and task. It can be inferred that there is a positive relationship between internal thinking style and organizational commitment. In this study, lake of explanation for this relationship can be due to the organizational environment or respondent's personality and environmental factors.

Question 12: Is there a relationship between liberal thinking style and organizational commitment?

The findings of table 13 show that the correlation coefficient is significant between liberal thinking style and organizational commitment.

Liberal people like to think beyond existing rules and programs; they seek maximum change and complicated and ambiguous situations. They prefer to experience new and unfamiliar things in their lives and work. They tend to be pioneer and go beyond existing regulations. They seek maximum change and take a high risk. They look for complicated and important situations or at least when they encounter these situations, they don't feel sad. One of their characteristics is flexibility and tendency to maximum change.

On the other hand, nowadays organizations work in changeable and dynamic environment. Obviously these employees can raise organizational increasing competition and lead organization to success and efficacy since changing and taking risks are prerequisites of survival and continuance in today's organizational world. Therefore, organizations need liberal people for their own survival. As a result the relationship between liberal thinking style and organizational commitment can be explained.

Question 13: Is there a relationship between conservative thinking style and organizational commitment?

Findings of table 14 show that the correlation coefficient is significant between conservative thinking style and organizational commitment. Conservative people like to adhere to existing rules and programs and seek minimum change, avoid facing unknown situations as much as possible and tend to familiar situations in their work and lives. They are satisfied with organized and predictable environment. When there is not such a structure, they try to create it. So they evaluate all aspects in a situation and react to it carefully and diplomatically and try to create a predictable structure. This group of people pursues their goals according to rules and programs and makes use of pre-evaluated programs. Today, in spite of complex and changeable environments, some organizational tasks are constantly identified and fixed and don't change a lot. In organizational hierarchy, there are departments or units that follow monotonous rules. In other words, organized environment and factors are predictable in these sections. Therefore, conservative people are able to work well and show high performance in such environments.

REFERENCES

Aihong S.(2012). Relationship between Thinking Style and Teacher's Organizational Commitment .Journal of Inner Mongolia University of Technology.

Allen NJ , Meyer JP.(1991).A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human resource management review, Volume 1, Number 1, page 61-89

Allen NJ , Meyer JP.(1996). Affective continuance and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. journal of vocational Behavior 49,252-276

Coleman D, Boyatzis RE , McKee A.(2002).The new leaders : transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. 1^st ed.

London : Little Brown.

Emami poor.S.(2004).relationship between thinking style , creativity and achievement among student. available at www.Sid.ir Farhangi.A (2006).organizational commitment . Tadbir journal .Tehran .No:157

Golian LM.1998. Thinking Style Differences among Academic Librarians. Available from:

http:..works.bepress.com.linda_golian-lui.5

Harrison AF , Bramson RM.1983. The Art of Thinking . New York : Berkly

Herscovitch I , Meyer JP.2002 .Commitment to organizational change : extension of a three-component model . J Appl Psychol; 87(3) : 474-87

Kevin S.2009. Examining managerial thinking style, EQ, and organizational commitment. Journal of Managerial Issues Publisher;

Human resources and labor relations Available from: http:..www.freepatentsonline.com.article.Journal-Managerial- Issues.210440758.html

Nazem.F.Rahmati.Z (2009).relationship between productivity and thinking style .available atwww.sid.ir Sayfe.A.A (2007).psychology of learning and education .Tehran. Aghah

Sternberg RJ.1998. Thinking Styles .New York Cambridge university press.